View Full Version : Rahm Emanuel presses banks on guns
At this rate, by the end of Obama term gun owners will be required to wear a 'Symbol' while in public, will be required to ride in the back of the bus, have separate rest rooms, etc...etc..etc.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, moving to take a lead role in the gun control debate, is turning up the pressure on banks that do business with firearms manufacturers.
Emanuel is sending letters to two major financial institutions, TD Bank and Bank of America, which offer lines of credit to gun makers suggesting that they stop lending money to the manufacturers if they don’t come out for new gun restrictions.
“Doing business with gun manufacturers might benefit the banks’ bottom line, but they put our police officers, our children, and our communities at risk,” said the mayor.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rahm-emanuel-presses-banks-on-guns-86706.html#ixzz2Izkr3vnp
If guns were never invented, and all we had were swords, they'd be trying to confiscate the swords. Power and control.
Surgicalcric
01-25-2013, 08:24
...Power and control.
Exactly!!!!!!
Badger52
01-25-2013, 08:24
At this rate, by the end of Obama term gun owners will be required to wear a 'Symbol' while in public, etc...etc..etc.Get your "Get on the train" gun now.
:D
You forgot the pink font.
An action like this with no means of actually forcing a private lending corporation to do what is suggested - unless the businesses decide to do it themselves as a business advantage, of course - is a patently obvious political stunt to give the 'perception' to the voters that their elected officials 'care.' Such is politics and everybody understands it.
However, to hyperbolically offer such a patently shallow action as a foreboding of our somehow emulating Nazi Germany's treatment of Unerwünschten or returning to a pre-Civil Rights era America is silly and, IMO, as equally counter-productive in the minds of thinking people seriously concerned with the on-going issues related to our right to bear arms.
Richard :munchin
Ret10Echo
01-25-2013, 08:34
If guns were never invented, and all we had were swords, they'd be trying to confiscate the swords. Power and control.
The Rwanda example has been brought up elsewhere... Swords, according to this data set, was only 0.1%
Machetes and Firearms: The Organization of Massacres in Rwanda
Philip Verwimp
Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, and Households in Conflict Network, p.verwimp@hicn.org
Abstract
This article is a quantitative study of the use of machetes and firearms during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Kibuye Prefecture. The machete is an agricultural tool owned by most Rwandan households and is believed to have been the prime instrument of killing during the genocide.
The data were collected from 1996 to 1999 and contain information on the deaths of 59,050 victims.
Machete 52.8%
Club 16.6%
Gun, rifle 14.7%
Grenade 1.8%
Drowned 1.4%
Hoe, hack 0.8%
Link here (http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/43/1/5.full.pdf+html)
WTF is wrong with these people. It has to be about controlling the people.
Unerwünschten
Richard :munchin
That's good with kraut and mustard. :D
"as a business advantage, of course - is a patently obvious political stunt"
related to our right to bear arms.
Richard :munchin
Both.. The advantage is the good mayor will steer bazillion of state & city employee union pension funds to those that comply..
OR,, take their slush fund elsewhere.. :munchin
However, to hyperbolically offer such a patently shallow action as a foreboding of our somehow emulating Nazi Germany's treatment of Unerwünschten or returning to a pre-Civil Rights era America is silly and, IMO, as equally counter-productive in the minds of thinking people seriously concerned with the on-going issues related to our right to bear arms.
Richard :munchin
Same song, different dance...imo
You have a group of people demonizing another group of people for no other reason than they belong to a particular segment of society with the sole intent of causing them harm.
Same song, different dance...imo
You have a group of people demonizing another group of people for no other reason than they belong to a particular segment of society with the sole intent of causing them harm.
You mean like this? :confused:
At this rate, by the end of Obama term gun owners will be required to wear a 'Symbol' while in public, will be required to ride in the back of the bus, have separate rest rooms, etc...etc..etc.
I see.
Richard :munchin
WTF is wrong with these people. It has to be about controlling the people.
They've already got the press in their pockets to mislead the mindless. Can you imagine how mercilessly they'll be grilled on this episode?
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/25/obama-secretary-clinton-to-hold-first-joint-interview-on-60-minutes/
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hold their first joint interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”
Steve Kroft will sit down with Obama and Clinton today at the White House for an interview to be aired on Sunday.
The interview comes after Clinton was grilled on Capitol Hill over the Benghazi terror attack on the U.S. Consulate that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans last September.
Speculation is also rampant that Clinton will run for president in 2016 despite her stating numerous times that she won’t.
According to a “60 Minutes” press release, this is the first joint interview the president has done with anyone other than First Lady Michelle Obama.
The president last appeared on “60 Minutes” in September, two months before winning re-election.
“60 Minutes” can be heard in its entirety on All-News 99.1 WNEW at 7 p.m. Sunday.
Snip
Badger52
01-25-2013, 10:09
Steve Kroft will sit down with Obama and Clinton...Thanks; all I need to know. I'll be doing something else.
Dumpling-size (German ones) softballs; great with your favorite cutlet and a gravy, not too light, not too heavy.
:rolleyes:
You mean like this? :confused:
I see.
Richard :munchin
Confusing? I believe it is calling for what it is and there is no reason to beat around the bush.
Quotes from Eric Holder
" What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes. You know, when I was growing up, people smoked all the time. Both my parents did. But over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.”
or this
"We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
How about marking the doors of gun permit holders....
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-
Confusing? I believe it is calling for what it is and there is no reason to beat around the bush.
Quotes from Eric Holder
or this
How about marking the doors of gun permit holders....
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-
Good point.
Confusing?
Nope. I think your views are perfectly clear to you.
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
01-25-2013, 15:59
Good point.
Please don't feed the bears!:D
Please don't feed the bears!:D
Holder and his crowd, to include his handler, are trying to cause prejudice against gun owners. It's a typical Salinsky strategem, and-if that's the point Paslode's trying to make-it's a good one.
Peregrino
01-25-2013, 18:29
Please don't feed the bears!:D
Paslode makes a cogent argument with quotes supplied by the opposition. If you disagree with his premiss, your rebuttal should be at least as well supported. Snide comments are unbecoming and do not contribute to a better understanding of the issues at odds here.
Paslode makes a cogent argument with quotes supplied by the opposition.
I think the "context" of those "quotes" - viewed in toto and without the "cherry picking" - is important for argument's sake.
Richard :munchin
Eric Holder, then US Attorney for District of Columbia
Women’s National Democratic Club
Washington, D.C.
January 30, 1995
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWhRAccEuE&feature=fvwrel
“What we want to have as part of the gun initiative bill, an informational campaign, to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington D.C. and in particular, our young people. They are saturated in the media, and in entertainment, or by the entertainment industry with violence and I think too many of our young people, in particular, young men, are fascinated with violence and in particular, fascinated with guns.
“And what we need to do, is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun, anymore; in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.
“You know, when I was growing up people smoked all the time. I mean, both my parents did. But over time we changed the way in which people thought about smoking, and so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it. ” (laughter)
“And that’s what I think we need to do with guns; really change the way in which people think about them, to think about guns.
“Now, this is not going to be something that’s very easy to do, because, we are quite frankly fighting something that appears every day, on television, on the radio, in our popular music, in movies that these kids are exposed to. It will be an effort that will entail things that I am really not familiar with. I think I am a pretty good lawyer, but I, we need to get really innovative, creative things that are going to grab the attention of these kids and change, as I said, the way in which they think about guns.
“As so what I’ve asked, is that the creative community in Washington, those ad agencies that create these snappy ads and make me buy things that I don’t really need, devote that talent in a more constructive way, so that we can get at the minds of these young people.
“This informational campaign, I’ve also called on the newspapers and the television stations to devote to us a time and space, so that we can get these ads, so we can use these spots and not to give us one, two o’clock in the morning ads when nobody’s watching, but at the time when people, particularly young people, are watching television, so that when they’re watching, you know, “The Fresh Prince of Belair”, or “Martin” or whatever else they watch (and, yeah, I watch those things once in a while), so they’ll see these ads and they’ll be grabbed by these ads.
“I’ve also asked people who have influence over youngsters, entertainers, athletes, to be involved in this program as well. But not only them – community leaders, Jesse Jackson, Mayor Barry, people who have credibility with young people should be on the television, on the radio, as much as we possibly can and telling these youngsters that it’s wrong to carry a gun and if you have information about people who are carrying guns, you’ve got to share that with Chief Thomas and with his people as well.
“I’ve also asked the school board to make a part of every day, some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message; every day, every school, at every level.
“One thing that I think is clear with young people and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.
“We also want to have a hotline that we will set up and have the number of that hotline, so you could just go out there, and that would be something that people would have emblazoned in their minds, [so] when that they see a gun, or become familiar about the facts of a gun crime, they will call that hotline and pass that information on.”
Peregrino
01-25-2013, 20:11
I'm familiar with the entire context. I fail to see where Paslode's "cherry picking" has distorted AG Holder's stated desire to "change the way in which people think about guns" in any fashion. To borrow a tactic from the opposition and translate it into the vernacular so everyone can understand the dialog - his goal is to demonize firearms and the neanderthals who insist on their right to keep and bear them. His analogy to the battle against cigarettes is more than adequate support for my argument.
Or is this another case like our previous discussions about Islam - we're not supposed to believe what they tell us, we're not allowed to quote them, it's all a big misunderstanding?
I think the "context" of those "quotes" - viewed in toto and without the "cherry picking" - is important for argument's sake.
Richard :munchin
I found Holder's statements somewhat benign, except for two words.
Cower in the context he used reflect that Holder wants gun owners to feel fear and shame. And he believes gun owners should be outcasts of society.
Brainwash in the context used reflects that Holder wishes to change a belief. And he believes that people that do not believe as he does are stupid and should be coerced into believing as he does.
I would consider use of both terms in the context used indications of cruelty and anyone that believes brainwashing is acceptable or finds enjoyment or benefit in others cowering has serious issues.
I think the "context" of those "quotes" - viewed in toto and without the "cherry picking" - is important for argument's sake.
You're right--taken in toto his statement is even more anti-gun--violence is centered on guns, possessing a gun is bad, preach the evil of guns everyday in school and on TV...his intent is pretty clear to me.
I think the context of his message was that he was trying to make a point that the community needed to counter the "urban gun-culture brainwashing" the youth of DC were receiving and emulating from television, movies, music, and video gaming by proposing an alternative "anti-urban gun-cluture brainwashing" message in a "fight fire with fire" sense, like using a "back fire" in forest or prairie fires.
In that sense, I can understand what he was trying to do as the federal attorney responsible for DC.
Richard :munchin
Another caveat to Holders use of cower is perception
My perception of people smoking outside, What I see is smokers being courteous to non-smokers. Parents voluntarily smoking outside the home to benefit the other family members. I don't see ridiculed outcasts cowering in fear in a lonely corner afraid to come out into the light.
I believe we have a member on here who has stated, words have consequences.
Holder could have said something similar, but he didn't and he didn't because he sees smokers exactly as he described, which is a sub-class of humans and he wishes the same on gun owners. In addition he played to his audience in a fashion similar to a bully picking on a handicapped kid.
I think I am a pretty good lawyer
Lawyers have tendency to be very, very careful with word choice and use of words.....they don't want any chance of misinterpretation.
I think the context of his message was that he was trying to make a point that the community needed to counter the "urban gun-culture brainwashing" the youth of DC were receiving and emulating from television, movies, music, and video gaming by proposing an alternative "anti-urban gun-cluture brainwashing" message in a "fight fire with fire" sense, like using a "back fire" in forest or prairie fires.
In that sense, I can understand what he was trying to do as the federal attorney responsible for DC.
I guess addressing some of the underlying causes of urban and gang-related violence (such as single parent [generally working mother] households, a strong 'victim' life outlook, perceived social injustice and lack of social mobility, a staggering school drop out rate, prevalent drug trafficking and use, etc.) is "too hard" to address, so why not pick on something easy to demonize and lay blame? Sounds to me like the leopard hasn't changed his spots all that much.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Uncle Saul A.
Demonize...that's right out of the play book.
I think the context of his message was that he was trying to make a point that the community needed to counter the "urban gun-culture brainwashing" the youth of DC were receiving and emulating from television, movies, music, and video gaming by proposing an alternative "anti-urban gun-cluture brainwashing" message in a "fight fire with fire" sense, like using a "back fire" in forest or prairie fires.
In that sense, I can understand what he was trying to do as the federal attorney responsible for DC.
Richard :munchin
The quote about watching The Fresh Prince of Belair or Martin to see anti-gun ads lends credence to your theorem.
Looks deeper, to me; Holder and Obama give me the impression they want America's culture as a whole to shift its paradygm with regard to guns.
The impression I get is that they want to manipulate the laws so that eventually there are no means by which their control can be wrested away from them by anybody who thinks differently.
Another caveat to Holders use of cower is perception
My perception of people smoking outside, What I see is smokers being courteous to non-smokers. Parents voluntarily smoking outside the home to benefit the other family members. I don't see ridiculed outcasts cowering in fear in a lonely corner afraid to come out into the light.
I believe we have a member on here who has stated, words have consequences.
Holder could have said something similar, but he didn't and he didn't because he sees smokers exactly as he described, which is a sub-class of humans and he wishes the same on gun owners. In addition he played to his audience in a fashion similar to a bully picking on a handicapped kid.
Lawyers have tendency to be very, very careful with word choice and use of words.....they don't want any chance of misinterpretation.
Cower also means to shrink away, not necessarily in fear but also in a sense of shame. I read it to mean such. However, as my wife is wont to say, perception is reality.
I guess addressing some of the underlying causes of urban and gang-related violence (such as single parent [generally working mother] households, a strong 'victim' life outlook, perceived social injustice and lack of social mobility, a staggering school drop out rate, prevalent drug trafficking and use, etc.) is "too hard" to address, so why not pick on something easy to demonize and lay blame? Sounds to me like the leopard hasn't changed his spots all that much.
All that was being attempted at the same time. He was specifically addressing an audience of women on the topic of youth idolizing an "urban gun-culture" and what a community might do to change their young people's perception of its "coolness" and change it.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Uncle Saul A.
Demonize...that's right out of the play book.
And that takes us back to post #1 in this thread.
At this rate, by the end of Obama term gun owners will be required to wear a 'Symbol' while in public, will be required to ride in the back of the bus, have separate rest rooms, etc...etc..etc.
Richard
__
BT :munchin
Peregrino
01-26-2013, 08:52
Cower also means to shrink away, not necessarily in fear but also in a sense of shame. I read it to mean such. However, as my wife is wont to say, perception is reality.
I believe your interpretation supports our contention that the goal is to demonize 2nd Amendment supporters. After all, shaming is a time honored method of coercing compliance.
All that was being attempted at the same time. He was specifically addressing an audience of women on the topic of youth idolizing an "urban gun-culture" and what a community might do to change their young people's perception of its "coolness" and change it.
Oh - you mean "cherry pick" a susceptible/sympathetic/media manipulatable audience as a venue for announcing national policy! (The "gun initiative bill" he's referring to is part of the administration's legislative agenda - for the whole country.)
His boss likes to do that too. At least Holder didn't surround himself with children to make his point.
And that takes us back to post #1 in this thread.
Richard
__
BT :munchin
Yes - it does. Using subordinates to orchestrate a national champaign to "change the way in which people think about guns" with the "as soon as politically possible" goal of total civilian disarmament.
Of course that's "MOO, YMMV".
Using subordinates to orchestrate a national champaign to "change the way in which people think about guns" with the "as soon as politically possible" goal of total civilian disarmament.
It's an Alinsky-based technique similar to that which they're using to accomplish their goal of installing a single payer health care system, and deniable only by Obama apologists and libs, themselves.
ZonieDiver
01-26-2013, 09:32
Paslode makes a cogent argument with quotes supplied by the opposition. If you disagree with his premiss, your rebuttal should be at least as well supported. Snide comments are unbecoming and do not contribute to a better understanding of the issues at odds here.
Quote:
At this rate, by the end of Obama term gun owners will be required to wear a 'Symbol' while in public, will be required to ride in the back of the bus, have separate rest rooms, etc...etc..etc.
The quote above is a 'cogent' argument, supported by evidence? The point I'm making, and have - repeatedly - is that over-the-top statements such as that do nothing to advance the cause of those who favor the 2nd Amendment in particular, and smaller, less-intrusive government in general.
You found my comment 'snide' and I thought it clever. There are a lot of snide comments made here all the time - great volumes in the past six months or more. Thanks for pointing out that my comment could be taken that way. I hope you continue to point out such comments in other threads, by other posters. YMMV
Cower also means to shrink away, not necessarily in fear but also in a sense of shame. I read it to mean such. However, as my wife is wont to say, perception is reality.
Richard
__
BT [/COLOR] :munchin
In addition shrink could elude to hiding or minimizing ones profile, none the less you have a valid argument. However with either perception Holder is advocating the use of the painful emotions of fear and/or shame as a acceptable means to reach an end.
What is your perception of the intent of the NY Journal map?